Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Narz, Nov 18, 2011.
Yes, but that is not because of any thought that soldiers should not
DAMNIT i picked the wrong profession to join..... i wonder if i can back out of the military and flaunt my prowess on screen.
My main line of reasoning on the subject has already been well presented by others: a soldier's duty is inherently one of sacrifice while a porn star's, while not objectively immoral, is largely done solely for one's own gain.
American Soldier, who invades other nations and murders their peoples, is the worst human being imaginable.
Russian Soldier, who defends his Motherland against America and American-sponsored thugs, is the noblest human being imaginable.
That makes no sense and you know it.
That you say this displays a thorough lack of understanding behind the situation in Afghanistan, and it's no wonder you are so against it then.
If a neighborhood needs protection from certain criminal elements within, you would not place the entire population of the neighborhood in asylums.
And actually, with that, I see no point in addressing you any further.
You misunderstood the context and the point of my example. The idea is that soldiers have a duty to follow orders unless those orders are illegal or immoral in nature, in which case they have a duty to disobey those orders. The idea was not that [in this specific situation, do this].
I thought the issue was of soldiers doing bad things. While they are in the military, they are under tight discipline. What happens afterwards is not within the context of the issue.
...unless your regime is truly democratically elected, and the other regime is actually murdering its own people in order to stay in power. Sometimes, there is just no comparison between the two. Other than, both have guns, and tell their people that they're "protecting freedom".
And if you believe that a regime should have the right to murder its own people, and that it is not our place to judge their ways or impose our views upon them, then we have a fundamental disagreement.
We can't say for sure, because we don't have an alternate timeline, but we can estimate. And don't worry, people have been fighting for the wrong things for centuries. It doesn't take too much brainwashing to get a person to fight for a regime that is outright genocidal, especially when you consider social and psychological factors.
I think I'll play it safe and kill the genocidal tyrants, just in case sitting on my hands would kill more innocent lives than interfering.
Sacrifice for what?
In World War II, I can see it. The Japanese bombed our country. It was completely justifiable to retaliate, defend...
...rather than in what we now call the "modern" era. What were we trying to accomplish in Vietnam? Was that worth sacrificing people for? Was it justifiable? How about in Iraq? Sure, some terrorists attacked us, and it really sucked, to be honest. Does that mean that it is justifiable to devise a full-scale occupation of Iraq, when the 'enemy' we seek is not a country, but a smattering of rogue terrorists scattered hundreds of miles from each other, at least?
Now it gets complicated. From what perspective do we identify this status of 'morality'? Certainly the soldier would view himself as morally competent; after all, he is giving his life for his country. From the eyes of the observer, the discernment is not as clear. Personally, I think that the soldier that does not see anything but nobility, has a clouded vision of what he thinks he is trying to accomplish.
On the topic of personal gain, one must understand that the soldier is being payed as well--quite the larger salary and more benefits to boot. To say that the porn star is the only one who would do his/her business for self-benefit, is wrong. If the soldier had apathy towards his various moneys, benefits, etc., he wouldn't accept a $10,000 flat bonus--like my cousin did, after joining a bomb deactivation squadron.
Anyway, I rest my case.
Basically. If China was massacring Indian civilians, France was committing genocidal acts, the African countries were all at war, raping each others' women etc., then, IMO, taking a side in any or all of these causes would put us in a hell-hole bigger than we can imagine. Again, fundamental disagreement.
War itself makes no sense. But in the history of warfare, and in the current day, expert practitioners of warfare seem to believe it makes sense, and there doesn't seem to be much evidence disputing them.
You would start shooting people until the neighborhood complies, presumably, if non-criminals are killed in the process, it is an unfortunate side effect of protecting them.
Vietnam was a glorified proxy war against the Chinese. Not worth it. Not justifiable.
Iraq was about Bush's personal vendetta against Hussein (based on his own father's failure to apprehend Hussein), securing a good chunk of oil, an overall militancy and desire to establish a legacy, and just overall Bush incompetency.
Now true, we did end up helping the Iraqis, and might have saved more lives than would have continued to die and suffer under Saddam's regime... but we went in there for all the wrong reasons.
The anti-terrorist campaign was in Afghanistan, since that was an effective breeding ground for extremists (small courtesy of the Taliban). I could say that hey, we haven't had any major terrorist attacks since... but that doesn't prove anything.
At this point, we are there for two main reasons. First of all, to make sure we maintain control over the region so that terrorist cells can't pop up and resume training and recruiting (although this is less of a main issue now, seeing as they've started going to other places, like Pakistan). Second of all, now that we're there, establishing good infrastructure and other systems to ensure future prosperity for the people of Afghanistan. We have a duty to them now, to ensure that everything goes right once we exit.
The answer isn't simple, but it's a mix of actions and intentions, not to mention beliefs. We'd have to get into Ethics 101 and discuss the whole concept of morality.
Sex's moral status varies.
Killing people is almost universally seen as immoral. Unless in self-defense.
From my point of view, I see neither as inherently more righteous than the other.
Porn stars are providing a service. You gotta do what you gotta do.
Soldiers' motives vary, so it's a bit wrong to give them all credit for their actions. There are some upstanding soldiers who truly want to do good for their nation and protect it from harm, but, there are just as many who joined simply because they couldn't find another job or the benefits package was a bit hard to resist. Then of course, there are just kids who were forced into it by their parents.
Then, worst of all, you have the scum who commit war crimes.
Porn stars, I'd imagine, invariably do it simply for the money, whereas a soldier does it for a variety of reasons. They may all at the end of the day put their lives on the line, but to treat them all the same disrespects those who join for no reason other than to serve their country, in my opinion.
No, I mean you can't take an absurdly immoral conclusion and apply it to my line of thinking, just because it's loosely based on a broad moral principle I introduced.
If that is the best way of doing it, and it would save more lives than it would kill, then yes... but again, you are introducing an impossibly absurd conclusion within a set of nonsensical parameters - I certainly hope my agreement with your conclusion does not prompt you to extrapolate views in normal reality.
For example, in the neighborhood example, you would set up base and act like a police force. Shooting up the place would be a stupid decision, given this available alternative.
Or, for a more applicable example being Afghanistan, you would establish control, and slowly provide power to the governing body while ensuring that the "bad" regime does not return. You would only pull out once the country's own system and government would protect the people from such a situation (our own forces effectively serving as a temporary stand-in to ensure stability and a future).
Well then all these people going on about soldiers sacrificing for their country are full of it. That leaves the requirement to be a soldier what...A nice uniform? Lots of jobs have those. Some aren't even dangerous.
Unimportant to the issue of what makes them a soldier. What makes them a soldier is that they are expected to kill people if sent to, and agreed to this.
Yes. Yes we are. But the fact that we're complicit in an evil does not mean that is not an evil.
The fact that they have not been called upon, yet, to do the task that that army exists to do, does not mean it's not their task.
The store I work in has a security guard. He is there to stop shoplifting. To my knowledge, he has never stopped a shoplifter.
Reductio ad Absurdum.
I most certainly can follow your "moral principle" to it's conclusion. The very fact that you're uncomfortable with the idea that war sometimes requires large scale systemic rape seems to imply that you're not entirely comfortable with your own concept that the needs of "defending your country" allows for immoral behavior.
You can take a moral stance that differs from a functional stance.
In that example, you could easily say that we're supposed to interfere in each situation, while simultaneously accepting that we physically can't.
For example, I feel we have a moral obligation to invade a variety of countries, such as Syria (in general, once an undemocratic regime starts firing on its own people protesting peacefully, then it must be eliminated). But the geopolitical situation of today forbids it, not to mention our own economy not being at its best.
The issue is that no moral principle is that clear-cut.
The only reason I'm "uncomfortable with the idea that war sometimes requires large scale systemic rape" are that I can't fathom how this could be true or applicable. Nobody else can, and so if I agree with that, then it will seem like I agree with needless rape, because in reality, any such rape would be needless.
On the other hand, I can perfectly imagine a situation in which the moral requirement is the murder of many people (i.e. war). So I have less of a hard time agreeing with that.
But even in these situations, there are exceptions and special considerations. No, I'm not enlightened enough to know them all.
Let's see... Porn stars produce pleasure. Soldiers produce death, suffering, and oppression.
You believe plenty of moral issues are that clear cut. You just said that when one armed group is butchering an unarmed group, it is necessary for many people to be killed until that stops. That's far more clear-cut and precise then the idea that "murder is wrong."
Unfortunately, the annals of warfare suggest that tactical know how seems to go hand and hand with such creativity.
I find it interesting that you can imagine however that it is necessary to set women on fire, to fill them with lead, to gas them, to cause them to combust, to drive them from their homes, to destroy those home, drive them to starvation, force them to live in fear, place them in concentration camps, kill them and their children, their husbands, their fathers and their friends in any of the myriad and countless ways military expertise has devised, but you cannot imagine a situation where forced intercourse is necessary.
I find it interesting that you consider it acceptable to let women be set on fire, be riddled with bullets, be gassed, be driven from their homes, be refused the right to vote, etc... but you cannot accept the idea that killing someone that is causing all of these things to the women is not immoral, because "murder is immoral".
It is too easy to commit an act of hyperbole.
There are research that shows that the prevalence of porn actually reduces rape, more porn, less sexual violence, therefore I vote that porn stars are a more "moral' proffession, if there is such a thing. Soldiers can commit war crimes and often do, all "evil' regimes were propped up by soldiers (i think this has been mentioned) the soldiers of Saddam Hussein, were they committed in a moral proffession? Or the Nazis Wehrmacht? It is sad that our society yet requires the sacrifice of the life and sanity of soldiers, but there is nothing moral about it.
I'm glad I don't live in a place that's not a true democracy, now for the additional reason of not having to worry about being "liberated" (and if I defend myself I'm just an innocent pawn in Saddam's... no wait, Osama's... well some evil dude's scheme.
Why on Earth would you think that?
A porn star is providing services for others.
A soldier is providing services for others. Not for a country. Do you think a country is alive? Do you believe a country has one morale, standing unharmed by time? No. A country is nothing but it's leaders. It's the leaders which decide what the country does. Although a country might have general qualities or traits, humans aren't the same. You can't identify a 'country'.
When one wages war, he doesn't do it to help his country. He does it to help himself.
Separate names with a comma.